Can someone be a member of the LGBT community and still be considered in full
fellowship in the LDS Church? I really do not know the answer to this 100%. When
you identify as being gay does this mean you actually are a practicing
homosexual, or just that you experience same gender attraction? This is
something that has never been entirely clear to me, how someone that is a
homosexual can be seen as being in good standing in the LDS Church. I support
strongly people who experience same gender attraction; however I am not sure how
one can consider themselves in good standing in the LDS Church, yet still
advocate homosexuality. Is Steve Young advocating homosexuality or just
supporting people who struggle with same gender attraction?

I think that understanding within the LDS Church about same sex attraction has
improved. It still could be better of course, but it has improved, due in large
part to things like the new website. I think that reconciliation can be
difficult, and it is not always cut and dry like we would want to make it
appear. I struggled for a long time with certain social aspects of the LDS
Church that I just could not seem to reconcile in my mind. I just need to remind
myself often that God loves the sinner. We go from that point. There is so much
more that we don't know than that we do know. For me, I have found it
highly clarifying to advocate aspects of timing as it relates to change, as well
as acceptance of the honest in heart who want to do what is right and are
searching.

The Young's are true Latter Day Saints. Sometimes we all forget that God
loves all of his children. By bridging the gap, the Young's are living the
commandment that We should Judge not but should let the Lord Judge. I applaud
the Young's for their efforts and example. As an active Latter Day Saint I
hope I can be as loving and tolerant as they are.

One of the statements that bothers those of us trying hard to love, understand,
and accept the LGBT community is the statement "God made me that way."
Maybe it's factual, maybe not. We just don't have all the answers yet,
from either a religious or a scientific viewpoint. Without more firm ground to
stand upon, it's a perplexing stimulus-response mechanism affecting all
sides of the issue. Making this statement so strongly is bound to produce
frustration, confusion, and other negative responses, all of which perpetuate
misunderstandings, resentment, and intolerance. We need to be more wise, less
judgmental,less rationalizing, less conclusive until more facts and/or the
revealed word of God comes forth.

I long for the day when we won't feel the need to use such
phrasing. This carefully chosen wording makes it sound like being gay is a
temporary condition. It's not. The way it's written makes it feel like
there is a little extra that should be added "Finch has one son a two
grandchildren who identify as being gay, but they are fooling
themselves."

I applaud the Youngs fpr reaching out to the LGBTQ
community. It's another much needed step to make them feel more a part of
our communities. Let's hope the Deseret News board, staff, and owners can
soon follow their lead and try to truly understand and become advocates for
these too-often marginalized brothers and sisters.

One time I talked with someone who was in his mid 20's who had cystic
fibrosis. For some reason, his lungs can't purge the mucus. Every three
months they take you to the hospital and you have to breathen in a special
inhaler while the nursing staff whack you a lot on the back.

He was
serving in a bishopric in his home ward. He was lucky that he had lived to
adulthood. Usually people with his sickness die before they are 20. He had
chosen not to marry because he did not want to leave a widow.

I guess
if someone had same gender attraction, they may decide to live celibate. There
are a lot of noble reasons people will choose not to marry. This could be one
of them.

In the past I have had more than one Gay college student come to my office
battling thoughts of suicide. I believe those Mormons like Steve Young who build
bridges to the LGBT community rather than attack them are saving lives. I can
already see the change.

The Gay group/community/interested parties/club/orientation...or whatever, used
to have a severe problem with being totally ostracized, and they would argue it
still does. BUT, the worm has turned and now they are doing things to their
"enemies" exactly as they've accused their enemies doing to them.
Trying to find a rational middle ground seems impossible right now. The LGBT
groups can only see that "respect" means "think as we think."
They castigate any person who doesn't view Gay with joy. To say you are
fine having same rights isn't enough -- you've got to embrase their
mental position. If you don't they'll boycott your business like the
ones in the Northwest, cry foul and boycott your film if you, OSCard disagree
with them, and make up nonsensical words like "homophobe" that
they'll call you if you do not toe their party line.

We've
got to get to the point where "straight" can believe Gay actions are
immoral but so long as they treats gays kindly, with love, allowing their
contracts to be equal to anyones, then it should matter either. Middle grounds
are tough to find.

@FrankSegesman - do you think it's "caving to pressure" for an LDS
person/group to support those with alcohol or drug addiction, or to support one
who's compelled to gamble, or who's obsessed with pornography? Is it
inappropriate to help any group who struggles with desires that would lead to
sin if acted upon?

I thought it was very unclear through the article
if the Youngs condoned and supported the choices of those who act upon their
homosexual desires. To the Youngs and others with Affirmation, does "God
loving everyone as they are" mean God is accepting of homosexual conduct, or
does it mean God hopes they'll choose the path of obedience to his
commands, yet loves them even if they don't, as He does all sinners? I
didn't think that was very clear through the article, and perhaps
intentionally so.

There's a thin line to walk when building
bridges is the goal, and introducing the line of sin demarcation suggests
judgment that is inevitably counterproductive to that goal. It seems the Youngs
are "loving the sinner but hating the sin," with an emphasis on the love
and just no mention of the hate.

LDS readers: I'm faithful, active, and have a strong testimony of the
restoration and it's accoutrements, I read from the Book of Mormon daily
and love it. I've faithfully worked on this issue for over 30 years.
It's taken me that long to be ok with the plan God has for me. I love the
Lord with all my heart and I don't care what He wants me to do, I'll
do it. As I grow older and draw nearer to the Lord, He whispers peace to my
resistant soul regarding my sexual orientation. My feelings aren't lustful.
They aren't shameful. I have no desire to hide from the presence of the
Lord.

Instead, I rejoice in His companionship as I seek an eternal
companion ... a male eternal companion. Are we willing to be guided by the Lord
in this? What if 1978 was only the beginning of more light and knowledge? What
will you tell your children when they ask how you felt before the revelation
came? "We didn't know" isn't an excuse. We can know. Are we
praying to be on the right side next time?

What if there were laws prohibiting your friend with
cystic fibrosis from marrying? Or society condemned him because he chose
to marry?

Re:Mr.Plate

Mrs. Young at least opposed Prop 8.
She contributed to those opposing Prop 8 and the Youngs also had a sign opposing
Prop 8.Steve Young, however, declined to make public whether he supported
or opposed Prop 8.

Re:GLW8

Have you ever talked to or
heard a gay LDS (or not LDS)person's story about coming to the realization
they are gay? If not, you have much to learn. Affirmation has a website, maybe
start there.

If you believe God creates all types of people, then
why would it be different for LGBT? Perhaps we ought to leave the judging
up to Him, and simply treat our neighbors as ourselves.

My issue is with the language. I don't know if science is anywhere near
understanding homosexuality. Sexual behavior and fetishes are propensities borne
out by our behavior. I think it should be bridging the gap of LGBT tendencies.
If you are LGBT that means you are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or transgender and
open and proud of it. I don't believe in being transgender at all unless
you are born a hermaphrodite; I don't see where they facts are for your sex
being the "wrong" one. I also don't think being a heterosexual is
100 percent determined by genes, I think it is maybe 50 to 60 percent genetic
the rest is social biology and learning men and women have to mate to create
offspring.

article-"Heavenly Father loves our gays exactly the way they are —
exactly the way he created them."

That statement should have
been: Heavenly Father loves gay persons as he loves everyone else.

He no more "created" them that way than he created people who have any
other kind of physical attribute, trait, or characteristic of any kind or
nature.

Heavenly Father instituted His plan--and part of that is we
are all born into a mortal world with an innumerable variety of attributes,
traits, or characteristics--and we are born with them for an innumerable number
of reasons....

To say God created people to be Gay (or any other
thing) gives the wrong idea to impressionable people.

God planned for
us all to be born, and he loves us all. Period.

He invites us all
to turn to him to better navigate any and all conditions of living in a mortal,
fallen world.

I would agree that I find the point of this article confusing. I am not sure
what the point of the conference was. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area.
I was in high school when the question of gays and, to a lesser degree at that
time, lesbians were being debated. Our high school was the first one in the
country to have to allow a couple of the same gender to attend the Senior Prom.
I am for all people having equal opportunity, equal treatment, and equal
respect. The problem that I have is that it seems like the LGBT community has
always wanted more than equality. They want conversion of everyone to see it
their way. Just because I don't want the traditional definition of
marriage to be changed doesn't automatically mean that I disrespect others
who would like it to be defined differently. It just means that I believe that
marriage is about something more than a legally sanctioned sexual union with the
right to benefits. Surely we are creative enough to come up with an appropriate
solution, assuming people on both sides are willing to bend.

I agree we have, as a society and a Church, come a long way in how we look at
those who profess LGBT identity. I have puzzled and pondered much about this
situation.

If God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply, and it is His
same commandment to all of us, it would be a bit puzxling to have Him then cause
some to be unable to do so,and among what appears to be in ever widening
numbers.

If the Proclamation to the Family is believed to be
revelation of God, then at face value, acting on those LGBT feelings would not
produce offspring. I don't see the commandment to avoid partaking of the
tree of knowledge -- which had to be done for humanity to spring forth-- a
similar situation.

I have no idea why there is same sex
attraction. I do know that we are taught by those who have authority that it is
not wrong to have those feelings, but only to act upon them. Is it fair to have
those feelings then be commanded not to act upon them? Is it fair for the man to
have cystic fibrosis then not act upon his heterosexual feelings to avoid
leaving a widow and perhaps passing the gene onto his children? It appears to
be an individual choice in his matter.

My only real concern with the
LGBT dialogue is that those who don't believe that way are called bigots.
In this day of "politically correct" speech, I fear that dialogue is
what will bring persecution of Church members in the last days.